 |
|
We find ourselves at this poignant moment – a gun rights showdown during an election year – thanks to a fellow named Richard Heller, who so far has successfully challenged the District of Columbia’s broad gun control regulations. Heller, a security guard, wants the right to take his firearm home with him after a long day at the office. DC currently bans the possession of firearms-as well as other restrictions upon gun possession – as part of an effort to curtail the District’s high gun violence rate.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that DC’s ban is an unconstitutional infringement upon an individual (not collective, militia-y) right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. So, for gun rights advocates, the Parade of Horribles unfolds this way: the Justices find a way uphold and thus strengthen DC’s ban, which prompts gun control advocates to push for similar ordinances and legislation across the nation. Pretty soon, the fear goes, every jurisdiction prohibits the possession of firearms in the home.Gun control advocates offer their own dire forecast. In their worst fears, the Supreme Court strikes down the DC ban using a legal standard that opens the door to subsequent challenges to gun control regulations all over the country. Pretty soon, there are no federal gun restrictions and those on the state level are legally dubious. Pretty soon, this fear goes, everyone is packing everywhere. This is the drama the Supreme Court gets-and deserves-for not addressing the merits of the Second Amendment since 1939.
No kidding. And opportunism will rule.
Amusingly, Very few of the media outlets pick up on one of the most important points in this issue. According to DC police, since the introduction of this ban not only has Gun Violence not declined it has skyrocketed up. Even more interestingly the same is true everywhere that private firearm ownership is denied. The UK for instance, has a much higher gun crime rate per capita than the United States.
The Second point is what happens when people do own guns. In communities in the US where people are required to own and be trained in the proper use of guns, there are more than a few, crime has fallen dramatically. Shockingly enough, criminals seem to prefer easy, unarmed, poorly trained targets. Even more interesting, and contrary to the fears and claims of anti-gun lobbyists accidental shootings and people being killed with their own weapons have also gone down in these places. Quite possibly because they are required to learn proper usage of the weapons for the first time ever.
What does it mean to say: “And opportunism will rule”.?
Let’s see what these so called “Strict Constitutionalists” do with this one. The
Constitution is pretty clear that the 2nd amendment is pretty clear about this right being for the purpose of a well regulated militia. I’m betting that the right wing hacks on the SC will ignore that part and just roll over to the NRA.
Up next, does the 1st Amend apply to “the people” or to the gov’t only. Stay tuned…
Seeing how our civil liberties have been curtailed I see no reason why the SCOTUS won’t do the same … for our safety and protection of course.
#3 – Really?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Does it say THE GOVERNMENT? Who are THE PEOPLE? Pretty clear…
That 1930s case they talk about, the guy wasn’t in a militia, but that wasn’t the basis on which the Supreme Court ruled against him. If the 2nd amendment were about the rights of states or militias then that should have been all they needed. No, the Supreme Court then rightly considered it an individual right, or at least that he was part of the general militia, and ruled that the weapon in the case before them(sawed off shotgun) had no purpose for a militia.
Don’t they realize the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, and can be ignored when the situation fits?
“Regulated” as used in the second amendment doesn’t mean “put a lot of regulations on it.” In fact, only one of the four definitions of “regulate” in my dictionary have anything to do with the way #3 wants to use it.
If the framers of the Constitution had meant the “several states” shall be allowed to have an armed militia then they would have written that. They knew the words they used them elsewhere in the document.
I remember when the anti-gunners would say, “Well there nothing civilians could do with guns against a modern army.” I guess Iraq has proven that wrong.
#8 – I read that also. So, by the logic of that ruling I should be able to own an M16. Makes sense to me.
@#3 “Constitution is pretty clear that the 2nd amendment is pretty clear about this right being for the purpose of a well regulated militia”
Maybe for you… I read it so that the ability to construct the militia is necessary. The only certain way this can be done is that all citizens personally have an ability to have guns for that (and other) purpose ready.
If only the pre-organized-militia can have guns, those will be somewhere in the militia warehouse. Govt. which would like to oppress people just needs to take over that particular location and the citizenry has no way to counter-organize. People with personal guns can and will organize as proven by the American revolution itself.
This is actually “in the books” for organizing public based resistance force. It also (and sadly) works in practice: remember the Bosnian war? The basis for the opposing forces were armed individuals who gathered into militias and they were able to fight govt. backed regularly armed forces.
To conclude: in order to have ability to construct functional militia private citizens must be able to be independently armed. This is my reading of the lawyerspeek/old-English-words Constitution.
#1 – Amusingly, Very few of the media outlets pick up on one of the most important points in this issue.
Is that because both the “My Cold Dead Hands” Lobby and the “OMG! I’m Scared Of Guns” lobby both routinely make shit up out of thin air?
In all the years I’ve listened to these debates I’ve never heard one side or the other be reasoned or civil. Both sides offer bullshit and various grades of differently branded fear.
What do I think? I don’t care. I drove a cab, night shift, for three years unarmed in the city. All kinds of people crossed my path and I was uncomfortably close to many criminal enterprises. How many times was I involved in an incident involving a gun? Zero.
How many violent crimes with the “average” person witness in their lifetime? Zero.
When the government is taken over by Evil Dr. Hellfire and he unleashes his army of Ninja/Pirate/Robot hybrid soldiers to take over America, how effective will guns be? Who knows? Probably not much unless we can find a weakness in the robot’s armor.
My father retired from law enforcement. How many times did he discharge his weapon in the line of duty? Zero. How many times did my mother discharge a weapon to kill a chipmonk? One.
The point?
None… I just think its hysterical that my mother once tried to kill a chipmonk with a handgun.
#3, The individual right to keep and bear arms is a necessity for having a militia, which is the context for its mention in the Second Amendment, but regardless of this necessity, even without the Second Amendment the people would still possess this right.
And why is it that all other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights deal with restricting the government’s power to infringe on individual rights, yet you somehow want the Second Amendment to be different? It’s probably for the same reason that people foolishly think that it is the Constitution grants them their rights, and unless listed in the Bill of Rights, they don’t have any. This was exactly the point for the argument against the Bill of Rights that Alexander Hamilton made from the beginning:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
Setting aside the constitutional issue, and I do believe the ban is constitutional, I can’t see how the DC gun ban could have any real effect on the number of handguns in the pockets of your average criminal. In fact I know someone who was robbed at gunpoint in the district just recently. The truth of the matter is as long as you can purchase a handgun in Maryland and Virginia, the gun ban won’t deter criminals. It only hurts the law abiding citizens who want to defend themselves.
#13–OFTLO==odd you don’t see guns as necessary for the protection of your anonymity/privacy? And while a cynosure yourself, what of weaklings like myself?
That aside, what would be interesting to discuss would be the heart of the article: “If there is an individual right under the Second Amendment is the right to possess a firearm in your home – or anywhere else – a right so “fundamental” under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that it requires the government to offer the highest legal level of justification for restrictions placed it? Or is a lower level of review suitable, in which case more gun control ordinances and laws would withstand legal challenge? And, if the Justices go with the former and not the latter, what sorts of restrictions would survive judicial review? If the Court answers those questions, at least we’ll all know more than we do now about where we are supposed to go next in this old battle.”
Highest scrutiny vs reasonable nexus sort of thing. Seems to me the history of the court rulings is pretty clear the court will take the latter standard. Of further interest is how the standard BS doesn’t help the analysis. What would a “strict constructionist” interpretation vs an “activist court” interpretation be?? === ie, no guidance at all. Only an activist court would apply the constitution to anything but barrel loaded muskets–that sort of thing.
In a world/country gone nuts, hard to fashion the “right” decision, but as long as the government and a fast cab can’t protect you, I guess some level of gun permission has to be allowed?
I’m fairly sure that if the Founding Fathers had thought that retarded people would be in charge of things nowadays, they would have said “The People, shall have the right to bear arms, to protect themselves from criminals and criminal government. But we draw the line at cannon with a muzzle diameter of more than four inches. Unless permanently mounted.”
I hope the court takes this opportunity to make a statement that common sense prevails despite the rhetoric and extreme viewpoints from both sides.
I can dream, can’t I?
BTW, I don’t see anyone staging a revolution or stopping a runaway US Army with 9mm pistols…
#18 – Exactly. That’s why we shouldn’t be limited
to 9mm semi-automatic weapons…
#18–Olo==everyone (except #19–pat evidently) is for common sense, but sadly there is no sense that is held in common.
That news item the other day of the guy who lent his AR-16 to a friend who fired it at the local range–it jamed or broke–and became automatic firing. So the guy is facing a prison term for trafficking in machine guns.
Common sense has left the scene.
#16 – OFTLO==odd you don’t see guns as necessary for the protection of your anonymity/privacy? And while a cynosure yourself, what of weaklings like myself?
I see the probability of being involved in a general altercation involving guns to be very low and my odds of there being, for me, a favorable outcome of any altercation with the police to be nil.
I’m not anti or pro gun. I just don’t think guns are as powerful a force as we think. Guns can kill, threaten, or terrorize, and sometimes, if lucky, can protect. Real and lasting change comes from work involving voices, words, writing, and political will.
I don’t care about the rest of the verbal masturbation associated to 2nd Amendment debates.
#17 – I’m fairly sure that if the Founding Fathers had thought that retarded people would be in charge of things nowadays, they would have have chucked the whole thing and moved to an island.
#20 – Glad you weren’t around before the revolution. There wouldn’t have been one. Sling shots wouldn’t have defeated the Royalist’s and the British army sent to suppress the freedom of the colonies…
It’s simple. The Founding Fathers, fearing the potential of an oppressive government (seeing as how they just cast one aside, I can’t say I blame them), guaranteed the right to ALL INDIVIDUALS of bearing arms. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence…
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Founding Fathers provided the American people the ability with which to defend themselves from tyranny, guaranteeing our basic human rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is the basic aim of progressive humankind to pursue moral goals. And yet, there are those who wish to deny us these goals through force. The British made repeated attempts to circumvent these basic aims, and, in doing so, sealed their fate as the leaders of what became our great nation. This lesson should not need repeating.
My determination in life is to live a good, decent, moral life with my family and loved ones. It is my right to defend that determination from all enemies, foreign or domestic. It is my .45 that is the final guarantor of that right, and I will die before I let the government pry it from my hands.
Now, before you revisionists read my words and try and twist them into an anarchist’s viewpoint, know this: I love my country dearly, and I will readily die to defend it. Anarchy is not the way. I hope and pray that the Supreme Court lights the way through a just and moral ruling.
And if they don’t… Well, I just don’t know. It’s a thought too frightening to think about. We’ll just have to go from there, I guess.
#24 – Of course, force is a last resort to fight gross injustice.
Some would choose to deny that ability to a people. Those that feel that way are of the same ilk as the worst despots in history, as they facilitate them and their insanity.
21:
I don’t speak out against the government, believe in god, protest, or read the newspaper, so the 1st amendment really doesn’t matter to me.
The Bill of Rights may not matter to you on a daily basis, but it should matter if the government starts taking them away.
This is just a specious as the “if you’ve done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from law enforcement” arguments.
#22 – #20 – Glad you weren’t around before the revolution. There wouldn’t have been one. Sling shots wouldn’t have defeated the Royalist’s and the British army sent to suppress the freedom of the colonies…
I’m fairly sure you mean me… #21… and not #20… But in any case, if I had been around in the 1700s I would have held that a firearm was an essential tool and would have preferred to never be without one.
This is the 21st Century and the population can be subdued with weapons capable of unprecedented destructive power. We will not defeat hypothetical government stormtroopers with a crowd brandishing handguns rushing checkpoints over the Potomac.
And from what I see… Modern Americans don’t seem to mind suppression of freedom quite as much as I might have guessed they might anyway… so it hardly matters.
In these threads I am talking about why “I” don’t own a gun. I don’t care if you or anyone else owns one or two or five.
I feel I have the right to have a firearm “in my home”. I also feel I should be required to be properly trained in the use of that firearm. I think gun safety is as important as sex safety. Both should be taught in our gov run schools.
OhForTheLoveOf – I didn’t mean you.
I believe that the writers of the Bill of Rights established the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, which worked for them and their time. I also believe that a majority of American citizens would like to see handguns stopped being manufactured in this country to stem the existence of inner city gun violence. I believe that a majority of American citizens are in favor of owning and learning how to fire a rifle in the rare opportunity of self-defense, hunting for food or anarchy. I would love for SCOTUS to write a decision that balanced all three beliefs, but I do not believe that it can.
#30 – I wouldn’t mind that except some people need a pistol for mobile defense. There have been rulings that local gov’t isn’t responsible for protecting an individual from criminals.